Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Fiery]

You have.

The guy took 5 5fers and 0 10fers in 54 tests all at an average over 40. He was crap

 

[Richard]

And what happened in the 1999 England v NZ series? I went to the Lords test.

So? The result of the 1999 series doesn't make either England or New Zealand substandard Test sides.

 

[Richard]

The guy took 5 5fers and 0 10 fers in 54 tests all at an average over 40. He was crap

I couldn't care less about how many five-fors or ten-fors he took. He made massive contributions to winning Tests on the relatively rare occasion conditions allowed him to. More than Peter Such ever did.

Giles on a turning pitch was very, very far from crap. Crap on a non-turner, though, like anyone who doesn't spin the ball much.

 

[Fiery]

I couldn't care less about how many five-fors or ten-fors he took. He made massive contributions to winning Tests on the relatively rare occasion conditions allowed him to. More than Peter Such ever did.

Giles on a turning pitch was very, very far from crap. Crap on a non-turner, though, like anyone who doesn't spin the ball much.

He was mediocre at best

 

[Richard]

No, he wasn't, he was excellent at best. He was wholly poor at worst, though, and that was in the majority.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I couldn't care less about how many five-fors or ten-fors he took. He made massive contributions to winning Tests on the relatively rare occasion conditions allowed him to. More than Peter Such ever did.

Giles on a turning pitch was very, very far from crap. Crap on a non-turner, though, like anyone who doesn't spin the ball much.

Agreed but he got very little chance to play on turners & was overall a crap bowler.England should never play a spinner unless they're playing on a wicket which is expected to provide assistance to spinners.

 

[Fiery]

No, he wasn't, he was excellent at best. He was wholly poor at worst, though, and that was in the majority.

 

[Richard]

Agreed but he got very little chance to play on turners & was overall a crap bowler.England should never play a spinner unless they're playing on a wicket which is expected to provide assistance to spinners.

Yep, Giles shouldn't have played in half the Tests he did.

Had he been left-out when he should have been, his record would be far, far better than it is. Every English spinner since covered wickets who played every game near enough would do or has done similarly.

 

[archie mac]

Agreed but he got very little chance to play on turners & was overall a crap bowler.England should never play a spinner unless they're playing on a wicket which is expected to provide assistance to spinners.

Aust. have gone into a Test on a few occasions with no spinner and they have had a 'sameness' about their attack, in fact only the Windies have pulled it off, and they just happened to have three all time quicks and a fourth very good one in their team

 

[archie mac]

Yep, Giles shouldn't have played in half the Tests he did.

Had he been left-out when he should have been, his record would be far, far better than it is. Every English spinner since covered wickets who played every game near enough would do or has done similarly.

Jim Laker?

 

[Richard]

Laker never played on covered wickets did he?

 

[Richard]

Aust. have gone into a Test on a few occasions with no spinner and they have had a 'sameness' about their attack, in fact only the Windies have pulled it off, and they just happened to have three all time quicks and a fourth very good one in their team

Aus have also gone into Tests with a crap spinner many times and had a "sameness" (on the rare occasion the seamers were also crap).

If you have 4 good seamers and 2 crap spinners, pick the seamers.

 

[archie mac]

Laker never played on covered wickets did he?

Yes, he came to Aust in 1958-59 and the Aussie batsman still smarting from 1956 really wanted to put him in his place. They came away saying he really was a great bowler

Plus uncovered only helped bowlers when it rained

 

[Ikki]

Murali has an even better claim than Warne for the top spinner, objectively-speaking.

How did you come to that realisation?

You're the first person who I have seen say McGrath is not much of a match-winner. He's the single greatest reason Australia have been so dominant, no opposition had an answer to him.

What? No.

McGrath is an all-time great and for many times he swayed the match in our favour before it could get out of hand, but he didn't rescue innings like Warne did. If we weren't taking wickets when we were under the pump, Warne showed up usually.

Remember when Australia lost in India in 1997, or recently in the Ashes? It's no coincidence McGrath was crucially injured both times, and Warne's presence then didnt change the result. McGrath was the Aussie trumpcard, not Warne.

And that's your reasoning? Poor argument. Warne had an all-time series performance against England in that series. Some say the best ever. Tied for the most wickets in a series ever. And because Australia didn't win, Warne didn't make a difference?

Give me a single tangible reason or two other than the the fact that his teammates lauded him that you consider Warne the better bowler.

You mean besides all his wickets?

 

[archie mac]

Aus have also gone into Tests with a crap spinner many times and had a "sameness" (on the rare occasion the seamers were also crap).

If you have 4 good seamers and 2 crap spinners, pick the seamers.

I have never seen it work for the Aust. team, and in a country with as many quality cricketers as Aust I think they should never try it again

 

[pasag]

Good to see SF Barnes making a late dash. One question though, I wonder why in the batsman thread we had a heap of batsmen from years gone by, but here the bowler lists seem very modern. Is it because all the best bowlers have been in the modern age? Or do the older ones not get the respect they deserve? And if the latter is true, why do the older batsmen stay in our memories but the bowlers are so easily forgotten?

 

[Ikki]

Neither warne nor murali did much against the best players of spin (Australia and India, in Muralis case and India in Warnes). The other bowlers certainly proved themselves against the best players of pace. It doesn't hurt the spinners, because they are so far ahead of all the other spinners, that it doesn't matter. But if you compare them as bowlers, its a big huge red flag.

Well, for Warne at least it is explainable. Around the India series, Warne was either green (he was very poor at the start of his career) and the bulk of his tests came in a time where he was injured and crap out of form. His poor performance subsequently against England and the Windies show this. This is the same reason that makes his Windies figures so bad. Because earlier in his career, when the Windies were a force, he did very very well against them.

And still, I would trade a handful of poor performances for innumerable amount of performances which have been rarely matched.

 

[Richard]

Yes, he came to Aust in 1958-59 and the Aussie batsman still smarting from 1956 really wanted to put him in his place. They came away saying he really was a great bowler

Really? What happened in said series? Have read little to nothing about it other than the result.

Plus uncovered only helped bowlers when it rained

Yeah, of course, but it rains quite a bit in this country.

 

[archie mac]

Good to see SF Barnes making a late dash. One question though, I wonder why in the batsman thread we had a heap of batsmen from years gone by, but here the bowler lists seem very modern. Is it because all the best bowlers have been in the modern age? Or do the older ones not get the respect they deserve? And if the latter is true, why do the older batsmen stay in our memories but the bowlers are so easily forgotten?

Did you read my list!!!

Not sure about the reason tbh, they seem to decide that the fast bowlers were slow and had poor actions, and the spinners relied on uncovered pitches

 

[archie mac]

Really? What happened in said series? Have read little to nothing about it other than the result.

Yeah, of course, but it rains quite a bit in this country.

Yes that is true

1958/59 England came to Aust as the best in the world and were smashed 4-0 by the Aussies with Benaud in his first series as captain

Fingleton called his book 'Four Chuckas to Australia' That may give you an idea, of the heated series it was